Posted
by
timothy
on Friday August 29, 2008 @12:14AM
from the used-to-power-the-black-helicopter dept.

mattnyc99 writes "There was plenty of chatter last week about an MIT announcement that researcher Angela Belcher had developed a way to create virus-based nanoscale batteries to power mini gadgets of the future. In a fascinating followup at Popular Mechanics, Belcher now says that her unpublished work includes full-scale models of the batteries themselves, and that they could power everything from cars and laptops to medical devices and wearable armor. Quoting: 'We haven't ruled out cars. That's a lot of amplification. But right now the thing is trying to make the best material possible, and if we get a really great material, then we have to think about how do you scale it.'"

I see nothing in those articles about these batteries being "mega efficient", as the title of this Slashdot post screams. The novelty seems to be the fact that they're grown using viruses and can be applied in thin films.

It doesn't say anything about any secrecy either, and they haven't actually built anything yet, except full scale models (whatever that means). I guess the only accurate part of the title is that it's something to do with MIT and batteries.

When you discover something, typical procedure is to make a paper on it. Instead, MIT went ahead and worked on development before announcing the fundamental concept discovered. Maybe not "secret," but highly unusual.

Bahahaha.. ya kidding right? Maybe that's what is "usual" in academia but everyone else in the world gets down to the business of tinkering and seeing what the discovery is worth long before they even think about telling the world, let alone writing a non-opaque scientific paper about it.

Uh, they did? The article says they wrote a paper about their anodes and electrolytes (I expect the electrolyte isn't such a big deal).

So they made some viruses that are supposed to make little wires. Then they used the viruses to make some little wires. Then they wrote a paper. Then they worked on some more viruses to make some other wires that could be used as the other necessary component of a battery. And they're writing another paper.

Uh, they did? The article says they wrote a paper about their anodes and electrolytes (I expect the electrolyte isn't such a big deal).

So they made some viruses that are supposed to make little wires. Then they used the viruses to make some little wires. Then they wrote a paper. Then they worked on some more viruses to make some other wires that could be used as the other necessary component of a battery. And they're writing another paper.

That really sounds like pretty much how it's supposed to happen.

I think the poster was using a definition of secrecy along the lines of "not yet in Popular Mechanics." Now where did I park my secret car?

and they haven't actually built anything yet, except full scale models (whatever that means).

Creating 1:1 scale battery models is one of my hobbies. I find that tubes from toilet paper rolls work well as a base for models of D cells. Large drinking straws are a good starting point for AAA cells. Old laundry detergent boxes are great when you want to move to more advanced projects like automobile batteries.

"A much-buzzed-about paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences earlier this month details the team's success in creating two of the three parts of a working battery--the positively charged anode and the electrolyte. But team leader Angela Belcher told PM Wednesday that the team has been seriously working on cathode technology for the past year, creating several complete prototypes. "

"The cathode material has been a little more difficult, but we have several different candidates, and we have made full, working batteries."

They've actually built things, that work, though the 3rd component the cathode is still apparently a work in progress. The summary says "models", which of course means something specific to/.ers, but that isn't the reality reflected in the articles.

There is just no pleasing some people. These guys have been consistently working away on a hard problem, making progress along the way, published their work, so others can run their own experiments, and worked towards a product.

Meanwhile, what exactly have you been doing?

Like somebody else said, if you only want final products, go to Best Buy.

"Prototypes" mean something specific to us too.. and it isn't "2 out of 3 critical components, not even integrated yet".

Actually, it can, because they can be prototypes of the components. Two of which have been integrated. And they've made full, working batteries, just not using their cathode technology yet.

Why don't you just RTFA instead of continuing to poo-poo their accomplishment based on a single word taken out of context, the first one you latched onto not even existing in the article? Right, right, I must be new here.

There is no mention that the batteries are even functional.Just stated that they made "parts of batteries" : stacked some layers, patterened them, used a virus to help deposit another layer, stacked more layers and issued a press release! Phase 3, profit (from renewed grant).

Hard for the casual observer to see how this improves on the usual film deposition methods, other than not requiring vacuum chambers, pumps, etc.

And while we're at it, mega-efficient isn't very meaningful when describing batteries - hig

I see nothing in those articles about these batteries being "mega efficient", as the title of this Slashdot post screams. The novelty seems to be the fact that they're grown using viruses and can be applied in thin films.

Oh, no, that is not complete story of what this bugs could do. Think about it for a moment:

1. those are big-molecule-sized particle batteries.2. You can construct them in such a matter that their terminals can be accessed only trough specific shape of (molecular, e.g. an enzyme) connectors.3. You can make each terminal incompatible with opposite polarity terminal, allowing for suspending those batteries in a liquid, or, if the batteries can bond with each other through (weak) hydrogen bonds, a large mass of them might already be in liquid form.

Now, what is that all together? An "electric fuel", something that might power electric cars, but refuel on pump stations in same time ICE cars refuel. Car would have nanobatteries' processing unit, which would allow parallel connection of great many such batteries, pumped from the "fresh" tank. Once discharged in processor, batteries would be would be pumped into "used" tank.

Bonus points for hypothetical clever battery design that would spoil terminals' shape if battery is empty as it would allow processor to be installed in "fresh" tank and just keep the tank stirred enough. Once processor squeezes out all the "juice", battery should fall off it, allowing connection with another, fresh battery to commence.

3. You can make each terminal incompatible with opposite polarity terminal, allowing for suspending those batteries in a liquid, or, if the batteries can bond with each other through (weak) hydrogen bonds, a large mass of them might already be in liquid form.

While that seems like a great idea, I don't see how it can prevent loops from happening - while it keeps the + and - terminals of each battery connected in series properly, it doesn't keep it from eventually forming a huge loop and shorting itself out..

... researchers genetically engineer viruses to attract individual molecules of materials they're interested in... The M13 viruses used by the team can't reproduce by themselves and are only capable of infecting bacteria.

Good thing bacteria can't infect anything...

Of course, now I'll have to worry about my batteries getting a Staph infection:
"Doctor, I need some Vancomycin for my laptop."

You make an interesting point about Bacteria infecting things ; Maybe an offshoot of this research could be a medical-process for removing heavy metals from the human body. A method of completely counteracting Lead or Mercury poisoning. I wants to eats Salmon all the time darnit! I just don't want the brain tumours that go with it.

I imagine though, that would involve creating a much more sophisticated virus that itself attracts the metals, rather than using the bacteria they've already created. Unless you could get it up your nose and leave it there so you can blow mercury snot out of your nose. That would be kind of cool, in a 'My snots toxic' kind of way.

Not a problem; Push for nukes and AE, and the lead will go away. China now emits about 1/2 of the world's lead and America still emits about 1/3 (cleaner coal; some minor scrubbers). If these 2 countries move away from coal, you would see a major drop in lead in our fish within 5 years.

Maybe an offshoot of this research could be a medical-process for removing heavy metals from the human body... I imagine though, that would involve creating a much more sophisticated virus that itself attracts the metals, rather than using the bacteria they've already created.

Ya I thought of that, but I was really thinking about mutation and wide-spread infection. Ever read the book, Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters [fantasticfiction.co.uk] (written in 1971)? It's about rare bacteria found in nature that apparently consume plasti

Wasn't it Popular Mechanics that predicted in the 1970's that by the year 2000, robots would be doing all of the work, and we could all be sitting by the pool, sipping on Daiquiris? Unfortunately, they forgot about how people were going to get a paycheck. I can't believe even Slashdot would mention anything from Popular Mechanics.

Its not funny its true. A person costs about $150 on the human trafficing market. Building a robot as good as a person will take you billion of dollars and years and years and then each one will cost you a shocking amount of money. People are good at doing shit.

Isn't Popular Mechanics the rag where half-baked technologies go to die? Right after the part where they will revolutionize All Life As We Know It? And right before the part where The Idea is killed by an Evil Conspiracy?

They are usually late with the important news and way too early with stuff that will eventually crash and burn. Not that they can't build a raging headline and a totally misleading cover out of it.

I stopped going to Popular Mechanics for my cutting edge technology news when I was about ni

Actually, I'm curious how this is supposed to work. Aside from people always finding something to do, I really can't see why we couldn't be sitting by the pool. I mean, obviously, work still needs to be done. But if we get more efficient at that (e.g. by building machines that then do the work with fewer human hours involved), we _should_, on average, have more free time for a given level of prosperity, right?

But if we get more efficient at that (e.g. by building machines that then do the work with fewer human hours involved), we _should_, on average, have more free time for a given level of prosperity, right?

The Law of Diminishing Returns is universal. We can't ALL sit by the pool. Someone has to clean it.

As you increase a "level of prosperity" the TYPE of work may change - from picking berries in a field 14 hours a day to analyzing power-point presentations in teleco

But if we get more efficient at that (e.g. by building machines that then do the work with fewer human hours involved), we _should_, on average, have more free time for a given level of prosperity, right?

And you most certainly could RIGHT NOW. You would just have to scale back your standard of living to the time when humans were doing all the work. Back to a family of 4 in a 1000sq.ft. home, with no AC and a max of one car per family. Going to see a movie would be an event. Most people prefer their McMansion with constant entertainment. "Stuff" cost money, and the level of spending generally outpaces the increases in pay scales.

When was the last time you went to see a movie? Ate at a restaurant? Walked the dog?

In the not-so-distant past, these were pastimes of the wealthy, luxuries that most normal people couldn't afford. I'm not talking about the 70's, but more like the turn of the 20th century.

But people are able to afford more luxuries today than they did in the 50's and 60's. Cellphones, cars, television, computer? Just because we choose to spend time sitting in front of a moving-picture screen instead of by a poo

Actually, I'm curious how this is supposed to work. Aside from people always finding something to do, I really can't see why we couldn't be sitting by the pool. I mean, obviously, work still needs to be done. But if we get more efficient at that (e.g. by building machines that then do the work with fewer human hours involved), we _should_, on average, have more free time for a given level of prosperity, right?

Here's the reason you and I won't be sitting by the pool anytime soon: you won't get the money generated by automation. Businesses will, and the more profit is made and the more automation goes into it, the more businesses grow, and the more the people on the top will keep.

A more likely scenario of automation: the rich get richer, and everyone else is marginalized. People with money invest in, and run businesses that automate everything. The rest of society does the tasks that humans still need to do, maki

I'm reading slashdot on my floaty chair in my pool with existing battery technology, while a robot is cleaning my pool and vacuuming my floor. Another robot washes and dries my laundry. With one more to cook my meals, and one to fold my laundry, I'll pretty much have all my common household tasks handled by robots.

It's obvious that weaving these batteries into fibre (for example) or just the fact that they can create such tiny batteries is hugely advantageous from an engineering perspective. Now clothes can be powered, etc.

What isn't clear is why would you want these batteries to power your car? I don't really see any discussion on whether these pack more power than a 50lb car battery would. From the description it sounds like they're just regular batteries which expire, but are tiny. So by my no-math-involved logic, 50lbs of these nano-batteries should pack about the same punch as a regular 50lb car battery.

Am I wrong about this? Do the infected bacteria constantly replenish the components of the battery making them more like a generator that runs on raw materials ? Because it doesn't look like that, it looks like they create the components, stop the process and put them together.

Very very cool, but it sounds like the same technology we've always had is the end product. Please tell me I'm wrong, I want this to be the mini nuclear generator powering our cars we were all promised in the 1950's.

"Can we stick it on the head of a pin? People love it when we do that"

What isn't clear is why would you want these batteries to power your car? I don't really see any discussion on whether these pack more power than a 50lb car battery would. From the description it sounds like they're just regular batteries which expire, but are tiny. So by my no-math-involved logic, 50lbs of these nano-batteries should pack about the same punch as a regular 50lb car battery.

It may be easier to unload and load 50lb of small batteries then single big one, provided you don't have to manually disconnect and connect all the little ones. The difference is like between stopping for gas and going to the repair shop.

The key words are published earlier this month in PNAS. A working cathode prototype is the only unpublished news. Which isn't very exciting to someone that doesn't know anything about the mechanistic differences between an anode and a cathode anyway. Not compared to using bugs to build batteries.

I just don't see the efficiency. But I do see a totally new way of thinking when it comes to battery packaging. Even if they don't better current state-of-the-art batteries in amps, this offers a bigger innovation:

Imagine your laptop's case being the battery (better packing). Or you car's undercarriage (better weight distribution). Or your cellphone case being the battery (more packaging). This engineering innovation will change industrial design more than power-efficiency.

The M13 viruses used by the team can't reproduce by themselves and are only capable of infecting bacteria.

How is the fact that they can only infect bacteria relevant? I have plenty of essential bacteria that I consider more or less my organs. That is not any better than saying it can only infect kidney cells.

If they cannot reproduce (even after infecting a bacterium) it shouldn't matter, as there should not be a sufficient amount of these
to stop anything.

However, if these things are being mass produced, it seems to me the odds are that pretty soon at least one virus will show up that can reproduce itself. The question is: how many mistakes in transcribing the virus' genome in the lab would be required to allow it to reproduce?

Copying errors are the heart of evolution, and they will happen even on the production line.

lemme explain why they haven't yet in case you missed how they phrased it. They built a "model" of the battery. They still haven't nailed down how to make the inside part work or how to build a real one. I could take out my legos and build a car battery sized box and say it's a "model" of what a magic battery would look like and say I haven't quite figured out how to make it generate electricity. This isn't news, this is like someone drawing a picture of a flying car and having no idea how to build it o

For one, your lego battery wouldn't even work in theory. An actual scientific model is supposed to represent what would work as well as possible.

For two, they aren't just using a model. They've actual built components of this.

"A much-buzzed-about paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences earlier this month details the team's success in creating two of the three parts of a working battery--the positively charged anode and the electrolyte. But team leader Angela Belcher told PM Wednesday that the team has been seriously working on cathode technology for the past year, creating several complete prototypes. "

"The M13 viruses used by the team can't reproduce by themselves and are only capable of infecting bacteria. At just 880 nanometers long--500 times smaller than a grain of salt--the bugs allow researchers to work at room temperatures and pressures with molecular precision, using and wasting fewer hazardous materials in the process. Now that they've demonstrated the construction of such tiny electronic components is possible, the challenge facing researchers is how to make them practical."

As in the virus "inside part" is actually done. They've also got the anode construction done. They're working on the cathode.

This is a practical engineering project at this point. This is news. Who knows if it will end up "practical", but nevertheless it is real whether you rtfa or not.

Living batteries could be a good idea. Less bio hazards are good. If these could be powered by garbage, that would rock. Helps get rid of stuff we do not want and give us power to do things we do want.

The last 6 or 7 paragraphs explain what progress they've made on these things. Seems to be a bit farther along than a "model". So far they've got 2 out of their 3 bits created already. It'll be nice to see an update on this when they get a bit further along, though.

"They built a "model" of the battery. They still haven't nailed down how to make the inside part work or how to build a real one. I could take out my legos and build a car battery sized box and say it's a "model" of what a magic battery would look like and say I haven't quite figured out how to make it generate electricity."

This shows why analogies can be so bad. The two situations - despite sounding convincingly similar - are extremely different, as other people have pointed out.

Think about what you're saying here.Is MIT, a university, going to bring this technology to market?

We always hear about research because the people doing it need to show it off so that they can find business & manufacturing partners to bring it to market. Quitely shopping it around isn't the way its done.

Heh, that's exactly how it's done. You recognize that the research has commercial application, ask for spin-off rights, found a startup company, build a prototype, then get investors. The result is a whole lot of secrecy, and, eventually, an actual product.

On the other hand, if all you're trying to do is create buzz and get more government grant money, you make press releases.

What would be awesome is if there was a Wiki site for new technology claims like this where you could go and see what the current state of the technology is. For example, if you're curious about whatever happened to bla bla that you heard about 5 years ago, you can go look it up and find out why nothing ever came of it (instead of assuming the power industry bought it up and killed it).

What's next? Adware Batteries? Free power, only you get to watch adds on your portable tv, or listen to ads on your radio... oh wait... never mind...

WAIT!... Let's call Eveready and Duracell say we are consultants from Symantec, Mcafee or Sophos and we are here to create a strategy to help them win in this market space. A virus based battery... let's push out a pattern for that one boys...

Producing a demo model doesn't mean that you have produced a cost-effective means of mass production. Producing a cost-effective means of mass production requires investors. Investors require press and hype. Slashdot happily provides that.

I don't really understand what you're getting at here ; you think "at this point" they should be concerned about how to recycle them - instead of concerned about whether or not they could even make one?

Are they supposed to stop the research and start working on a recycling method ? This sounds like something maybe you would slate for the future - like if or when you had a single working prototype.

What's with the pseudo-math, "Even with a 1:1.... demand will increase exponentially" - exponentially from wha